Unfortunately for the people of the world everything is going according to the New World Order Plan. But what is this New World Order Plan? In a nutshell the Plan is this. The Dark Agenda of the secret planners of the New World Order is to reduce the world's population to a "sustainable" level "in perpetual balance with nature" by a ruthless Population Control Agenda via Population and Reproduction Control. A Mass Culling of the People via Planned Parenthood, toxic adulteration of water and food supplies, release of weaponised man-made viruses, man-made pandemics, mass vaccination campaigns and a planned Third World War. Then, the Dark Agenda will impose upon the drastically reduced world population a global feudal-fascist state with a World Government, World Religion, World Army, World Central Bank, World Currency and a micro-chipped population. In short, to kill 90% of the world's population and to control all aspects of the human condition and thus rule everyone, everywhere from the cradle to the grave.

"Directly a man assumes the moral attitude of an historian he ought to forget all considerations, such as love of one's friends, hatred of one's enemies .... He must sometimes praise enemies and blame friends. For as a living creature is rendered useless if deprived of its eyes, so if you take truth from History, what is left but an improfitable tale" (bk. 12. 14). These are the words of Leopold von Rank (1795-1886) the great German historiographer and the greatest historian of his time whose ideal in life was the study of universal history: that is, the close contemplation of the works of God as displayed in the history of the human race.

Structuralism is a much used and abused term. It is used to describe any science, pseudo-science or critical method, which finds the significance of human things in their structure. In other words, an approach to the human sciences that describes, explains and analyses a specific field as a complex system of interrelated parts. Structuralist theories have been proposed for the interpretation of all of the following: language, actions, rituals, mythologies, religions, poetry, texts, clothes, architecture, anthropology, psychology, psychoanalysis, literary theory.

Any complex form or body has structure, that is, parts united under ordered relations. Further, to say a structure is the determinant and not a determinant of meaning is to say is not the parts themselves but the relations among them that are significant. However, the meaning or nature of a structure is not inviolable: its meaning does not remains unchanged when parts are changed. However, it remains invariant with respect to any systematic change of parts.

Four common ideas characterise structuralism: one, every system has a "structure." Two, the "structure" determines the position of each element of a whole. Three, structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes. Four, "structures" are the "real things" that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning.

Generally, there are two categories of Structuralist Theory: the Structuralist Anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss and his followers; and the Linguistics' Theory of Grammatical Structure. The first finds significances by discovering repeated patterns in cultural phenomena such as mythology, rituals, kinship, food preparation etc. It is supposed that although relations remain unchanged from culture to culture there parts related may be systematically different. It is then supposed that meaning attaches to recurring pattern of relations - the "structure"- and not the local variants that are fitted into it. By such a method, say the Structuralist, the fundamental mental structures of the human mind that form the "deep grammar" of society, which originate in the mind and operate in us unconsciously, can be discerned.

The second, the Linguistics' Theory of Grammatical Structure, argues that the meaning of a sentence is determined in large part by its "structure." That is, not merely by the words used but by the rules governing their conjunction.

Thus, the first category is different from the second. In the first, what is interpreted is the "Pattern" divorced from its component parts: while in the second, what is interpreted is the whole, as structured from its "parts." Thus, only in the first is "structure" thought to have independent significance, hence the term "meaning" does not mean the same in category one and two. And herein lies the rub: the two interpretations are entirely different and yet they have been routinely used interchangeably, which has led to the impression that everything that has structure or form has the structure of language and so are to be interpreted in terms that might be equally used in the interpretation of linguistic signs. A confusion that has been extended to actions, rituals, mythologies, religions, poetry, texts, clothes, architecture, music, literature and even political theory.

Structuralism in literary theory began with the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) whose Course in General Linguistics (1906) contained the infamous thesis that "in language there are only differences in positive terms." That is, the insidious idea that not only has words no meaning in isolation but also that their meaning is exhausted by the distinctions and contrasts between them. For example, "hot" is only meaningful because of "cold" i.e. the meaning of "hot" is given by the contrast with "cold."

Saussure's theories suggested that meaning in language is entirely a matter of "structure." A thesis worked upon by a motley crew of French literary theorists and philosophers who grafted two other theses on to it: the Formalist claim that "form" is the true conduit of meaning; and the Marxist claim that the meaning of cultural artefacts lies in their ideological function.

Structuralism in literary theory, using the linguistic sign system of Ferdinand de Saussure as a model, analyses the narrative material by examining the underlying unchanging structure. In addition, argue the structuralists, since there is structure in every text, then, everything that is written is governed by specific rules, a "grammar of literature," that the child learns in school. Moreover, it is the structuralists' task to unmask them.

Literary structuralism thus seeks out basic deep elements in stories, myths and anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the prototype narrative called by structuralists the "ur-story" or "ur-myth." Hence, structuralist literary criticism argues that a new literary text's novelty value can lie only in new "structure," rather than in the specifics of character development and voice in which that "structure" is expressed: a variation of the ancient adage that there is nothing new under the sun (Eccles. 1:9).

By the 1960s, Structuralism had been worked up into a powerful thought weapon. While some believed it offered a single unified approach to human life that would embrace all disciplines, Marxists of various hues as part of their assault upon Western Christian Civilisation especially favoured it. For, by this time, Structuralism had become part of the repertoire of Parisian leftism. It had become a trenchant, pseudo-scientific approach to literary texts, which was stiff with anti-bourgeoisie protest and in which vehement, political commitment compensated for the obscurity of the literary analysis.

The sudden popularity and apparent success caused a rash of theories to erupt collectively called Post-structuralism. These, combined with the Marxian commitment of the Parisian intellectual, produced a potpourri of spurious theses and a kind of nihilistic rage against all organised meanings, whether artistic, social or political.

Amongst the dense fog of obfuscation and intellectual posturing, certain basic Post-structural assumptions can be discerned, namely: the concept of "self" as a separate and discrete entity is a fictional construct. That is, an individual is not "self" but a mishmash of tensions between conflicting knowledge claims (e.g. gender, race, class, profession, etc.) and the proper study of a text demands that the reader must understand how the work is related to his own personal concept of self. Put differently, "self-perception" plays a critical role in one's interpretation of meaning.

A second assumption is that, notwithstanding that the author's identity as a stable "self" with a single, discernible "intent" is also a fictional construct, the author's intended meaning is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. In the dark, dim world of a Post-structuralist's making, the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or a singular existence does not exist. Instead, their world is populated with capricious readers who create a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a text from each reading of it.

A third assumption gleaned from the plethora of intellectual fudge is that the post-structuralist critic must be versed in the use of dissemble. Thus, he must use, demand the Post-structuralist gurus, a variety of perspectives to create the various interpretations of a text, even if these interpretations are mutually exclusive or conflict with one another.

The post-structuralist approach to textual analysis sees the reader replacing the author as the primary subject of inquiry; a displacement often referred to as the "destabilizing" or "decentering" of the author. A scurrilous idea given academic form in Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author (1968) in which the author announced the metaphorical "death" of the author as an authentic source of meaning for a given text. Thus, Barthes argued that any literary text has multiple meanings, and that the author was not the prime source of the work's content: in fact, the "Death of the Author" was the "Birth of the Reader" as the true source of a text's meaning, which, of course, changes according to weather!

Since post-structuralists removed the author from the centre of things, as the authentic source of meaning for the text he had authored, they perforce had to examine other sources for meaning (e.g. readers, cultural norms, other literature, etc.). However, since these alternative sources are never authoritative they cannot promise consistency.

Closely allied to Post-structuralism is Postmodernism.

Postmodernism began as a reactionary movement in architecture against the perceived blandness and hostility present in the Modern movement (i.e. Modernism), which dismissed frivolous ornamentation and emphasised the pursuit of an ideal perfection, harmony of form and function. Modernism's precepts, the pursuit of perfection, of 'pure' form or 'perfect' architectonic detail, and minimalism, were criticised as being both subjective and totalitarian. Postmodern architecture was thus a reaction to the notion of absolutes in the principles of design and construction. Its adherents advocated an eclectic, magpie-like approach by drawing from all available methods, materials, forms and colours. In other words, it rejected strict rules and universal principles and emphasised personal preferences.

Postmodernism is thus a style and concept in the arts and literature characterised by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions. This involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language.

The Postmodern architects' reaction against the alleged totalitarian qualities of Modernist thought emphasised personal preferences and variety over objective, ultimate truths or principles. This deep scepticism, this profound cynicism and pervasive criticism was not restricted to contemporary architecture but extended to critique everything that underpins human existence. In short, criticism, scepticism and subjectivity and the belief that nothing can be affirmed define the postmodern philosophy. Moreover, since its insidious, seditious nature easily lent itself to the Marxian enterprise to destroy Western Christian Civilisation it was soon grafted onto the Left's intellectual agenda. Thus, the burgeoning anti-establishment movements of the 1960s quickly adopted postmodern lynchpins of self-affirmation, free choice of lifestyle and defiance of convention.

Jean-François Lyotard's short but influential work The Postmodern Condition (1979) encapsulates the postmodern impulse. Here he argues that Modernity was distinguished by certain "metanarratives" of "legitimation," that is, theories and projects that justified human action in terms of a future state. This future state invariably means a state of emancipation from oppressive power structures. Ancient, traditional societies derived their legitimacy from some previous state, in which the gods themselves had authorised the tribe. In contrast, the "metanarratives" of modernity confer legitimacy upon the present moment by showing how it might be seized for the benefit of all. The legitimising power derives from their universality: the good promised (such as freedom, prosperity, enlightenment, socialism, progress etc.) is promised to all mankind. Thus, the project of modernity is cosmopolitan in that traditional communities are dissolved and released into the collective future.

The Postmodern condition is one in which the totalitarian qualities of Modernism have vanished and its "metanarratives" have lost their justifying power. This is because, argued Lyotard, the paths of emancipation have all been explored and the promises fulfilled. Hence, modern man is now released from tradition and free and equal member of a world community in which every lifestyle and every value are deemed equally valid and are openly available. Lyotard thus is the prophet of "history of the present moment." A viewpoint from which the old ideas of authority, duty and responsibility are not only rejected but also ridiculed. In other words, in the depressing philosophy of Lyotard and his kind, the past has been divested of its authority and the present pictured as a sort of "end of History": where capitalist democracy has finally overcome the contest of History, where freedom and abundance prevails, and a condition from which we cannot turn back.

This depressing view of humanity (in which everything is equally measured, equally valid, all problems are inherently soluble and nothing is worth dying for) is the world prophesied by Nietzsche, the world of the "Last Man." The time when all human aspiration dwindles to the point that all life can be organised by a team of managers and "experts."

The corrosive and profoundly wicked nature of this movement can be easily seen by those with eyes to see. For instance, in the nihilistic art movement called Dadaism, which flourished in Europe early in the 20th century and which played a significant part in shaping the character of postmodern culture. Dadaism (based on irrationality, negation of the accepted laws of beauty and exaltation of the mundane and the ridiculous) attacked notions of high art. This was done in an attempt to break down the distinctions between high and low culture, but also to undermine the idea that one cannot have an objectively superior lifestyle or belief.

Closely allied to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism is Deconstruction.

Deconstruction is a philosophy applied to literary criticism, as well as to criticism of the other arts, which become popular in the 1980s. It is principally associated with Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and his followers who have sought to mount a comprehensive critique of Western Culture, and to propose a method for studying the products of that culture, which will neutralise their claim to authority. In 1967, Derrida re-examined the fundamentals of writing and its consequences on philosophy in general and by this sought to undermine the language of western metaphysics (i.e. deconstruction).

Deconstructionism is the philosophical theory of criticism (usually of literature or film) that seeks to expose alleged deep-seated contradictions in a work by delving below its surface meaning. Deconstruction arose partially in reaction to the literary theories of structuralism, which had posited that when words are understood within the context of a society of readers, then one could point to the specific meaning of a text. The deconstructionists disagreed. They argued that there was not one possible meaning for a text but multiple and contradictory meanings. In fact, they argued, underlying a text is the subtext, which is a set of values that must be identified and evaluated to see if the text is contrary in nature and therefore, in the profoundest sense, without meaning.

Deconstructionists thus contend that not only are the traditional "readings" of the texts in the established literary canon false (because they ignore underlying value structures that contradict received wisdom) but also the teaching of students on this subject is equally flawed. Deconstructionists regard a text as a source of multiple meanings very much determined by the reader's own subtexts and definitions, whatever these might be. Deconstruction deprives the text of meaning and ultimately dismisses the value of anything it touches. In other words, Deconstruction reduces the meaning of a work to nothingness. Deconstruction is a strategy whereby a text's key terms and concepts are made to appear paradoxical or self-undermining, thus rendering their meaning undecided and undeciphered and so making the overall meaning of the text a nonsense.